No Court Tv At Bus Arson Trial

April 22, 1998|By COLIN POITRAS; Courant Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN — Connecticut judges are well-known for being camera-shy when it comes to allowing television crews into the courtroom.

On Tuesday, Middletown Superior Court Judge Salvatore F. Arena continued that trend by denying a request by Court TV, the national round-the-clock legal news channel, to cover a controversial Haddam school bus arson trial scheduled to start next week.

``We were very interested in covering the trial live,'' said Lynn Rosenstrach, a spokeswoman for Court TV's corporate office in New York City. ``This one caught our interest because of the issue regarding the confession.''

The destruction of 15 school buses early in the morning of Aug. 18, 1994, has been one of the region's most closely scrutinized criminal cases in years. The case involves a controversial confession that was thrown out by a lower trial court judge but reinstated as evidence by the state Supreme Court a year ago.

The confession is considered pivotal to the prosecution's case against David Saraceno, a 22-year- old Haddam man facing charges of arson, burglary, criminal mischief and conspiracy.

Saraceno is accused of setting fire to the Haddam-Killingworth school bus fleet, causing more than $500,000 in damage.

A week later, Saraceno allegedly confessed to setting the fires and implicated two others in the crime during six hours of questioning by Connecticut State Police detectives.

But Middletown Superior Court Judge John F. Walsh barred the confession from being used as evidence in September 1995, on the basis it had been obtained after Saraceno invoked his right to have a lawyer present during questioning.

Saraceno was informed at least four times of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present if he requested one, and acknowledged he understood those rights each time.

But at one point during questioning, Saraceno asked, ``Do I still have a right to an attorney?''

In response, the detectives pushed a phone toward Saraceno. Saraceno pushed it away and the detectives continued their interrogation.

Walsh ruled that the police violated Saraceno's constitutional rights by not honoring his request for a lawyer when he asked for one. The state Supreme Court ruled later, however, that Saraceno's question did not amount to a clear request for an attorney.

On Tuesday, Arena denied Court TV's request, citing a section of the Connecticut law practice book that gives trial judges wide discretion in permitting or rejecting television coverage of a criminal or civil trial.

Rosenstrach said Court TV's lawyers are considering whether they will appeal Arena's decision. She said the channel, which has 33 million subscribers, has a good success rate in getting its cameras into courtrooms nationwide, but Connecticut has a reputation for being less permissive than most states.

Also Tuesday, Arena barred all lawyers and potential witnesses involved in the upcoming trial from speaking to members of the media.